Bad Mayo

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

You must be drinking the same kool-aid on Todd, I sure do not see it.  16 a game next year, no chance.

Ill quote it and put it in my tag line. If for no other reason that we have nobody else to score. 16 a game. Bank it.

[Windyplayer]

You must be drinking the same kool-aid on Todd, I sure do not see it.  16 a game next year, no chance.

I never said anything about 16/game next year. Do you disagree that he has a quality left-handed finish around the rim?

[BCHoopster]

Well...he really isn't dreaming, because if you look at per 40...Mayo this year is better than Blue in virtually every measurable category...one big difference..Todd gets to the FT line at twice the rate Vander did.

http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?add=todd-mayo&i=1&p1=vander-blue

I'd agree Vander is a better overall athlete, is a longer player - wingspan and height - not sure about a better first step.  Vander was really good in transition last year....sadly, we don't really have a transition game this year...AT ALL.

I agree that Todd has had moments when you think he might break out and be the man, but that only has happened on rare occasions this year, Todd is much older than Vander.  Vander was much younger and developed his game the third year, maybe was 20.  Todd will be like 24 next year, not sure I can see that big an improvement next year.  Secondly, Todd on the road has been horrible.  Check his stats there.

[BCHoopster]

I never said anything about 16/game next year. Do you disagree that he has have a quality left-handed finish around the rim?

Todd has short arms compared to Vander, Vander was really long.  Yes, Todd can make a lefty lay-up, but can not finish anywhere close to Vander did last year, Vander was a little taller
and had explosive hops to the hoop, Todd does not explode.

[NersEllenson]

I agree that Todd has had moments when you think he might break out and be the man, but that only has happened on rare occasions this year, Todd is much older than Vander.  Vander was much younger and developed his game the third year, maybe was 20.  Todd will be like 24 next year, not sure I can see that big an improvement next year.  Secondly, Todd on the road has been horrible.  Check his stats there.

I'd agree there has been some disparity between Todd on the road versus home...yet the stats I linked are for the year...go down every single category....do you really think Vander is clear cut better than Todd?

We got a nice 3 game run from Vander in the NCAA..played huge...yet think that sometimes colors the overall recollection/memory of him as a player in a better light than what was the overall reality - that he was a good player...I wouldn't say great...and I feel the same about Todd.

[BCHoopster]

I'd agree there has been some disparity between Todd on the road versus home...yet the stats I linked are for the year...go down every single category....do you really think Vander is clear cut better than Todd?

We got a nice 3 game run from Vander in the NCAA..played huge...yet think that sometimes colors the overall recollection/memory of him as a player in a better light than what was the overall reality - that he was a good player...I wouldn't say great...and I feel the same about Todd.

I agree that Vander saved his best for last, in saying that lets see what Todd can do in the next two games, yesterday, he was average or below average.  It seemed last year that Vander developed an outside game, even made some threes.  Todd looks to drive all the time, like to see him take some more threes when he is open.  Todd just is not explosive with the ball, he has not really shown me he can take his game to the next level, maybe it will happen next year, not sure.  He will have a big opportunity next year as he will be a senior and the team is laddened with underclassman.  Next year they really will be a guard oriented team, threes might rain next year as they will have no interior game like this year, will be a totally different team with really
no post player.  Vander should have stayed, he was an above average college player only his junior year, I still think Vander was much quicker, better defender, reason, really long.   

[NersEllenson]

I agree that Vander saved his best for last, in saying that lets see what Todd can do in the next two games, yesterday, he was average or below average.  It seemed last year that Vander developed an outside game, even made some threes.  Todd looks to drive all the time, like to see him take some more threes when he is open.  Todd just is not explosive with the ball, he has not really shown me he can take his game to the next level, maybe it will happen next year, not sure.  He will have a big opportunity next year as he will be a senior and the team is laddened with underclassman.  Next year they really will be a guard oriented team, threes might rain next year as they will have no interior game like this year, will be a totally different team with really
no post player.  Vander should have stayed, he was an above average college player only his junior year, I still think Vander was much quicker, better defender, reason, really long.   

I do agree Vander was a better overall athlete than Todd..and much longer..which helped him cover more court area defensively.   I don't feel Vander was much quicker, laterally, anyway - probably straight line, yes...

But, Vander did have the benefit of playing with Junior running the point - Junior was great in transition, and pretty good in the halfcourt...and did require to be defended out to the 3 point line...I hate to belabor the point...but I think some just underestimate how hard it is to execute against the defense that can sag 6' off your PG...

[PGsHeroes32]

Says the guy who is going emotionally unhinged at the coach for Davante's playing time.

What does that have to do with giving props?

And emotionally unhinged? More at the way hes treated. Again, at least attempt to read. It does WONDERS.

As always, why always devils advocate? As much as some people want to say that there are trolls on here(there are none we are all fans in different ways) you qualify just as quickly. Anytime someone tries to point out something good....you immediately make it your lifes mission to shoot it down. Sorry if this is your life purpose but...

[PGsHeroes32]

Again, saying "Buzz being the fool that he is..." is much different than saying "Buzz was foolish to not have played Gardner more in the 2nd half of the game..."  The first (which is exactly what you said) is calling Buzz a fool of a person.  The second is saying Buzz made a bad decision, which I would not necessarily disagree with.  If you don't want to be called out for calling someone a fool, think about what you are saying before you say it.

Can you stop crying now, 2 weeks later?

Stop crying? Don't flatter yourself. No tears have been shed. Sorry that you had nothing, resorted to the generic "are you coaching" comment and got owned. Pathetic.

Yet in your post right here you flat out call a player BAD. I said Buzz was foolish, for that decision the one I mentioned. Of course you go literal and take it as a whole. Either way....being a fool is a little better then being straight up BAD.

The hypocrisy is bordering on crazy.

[PGsHeroes32]

Aww, I made a sarcastic post in a sarcastic thread that was specifically asking what posters live in their parents basements?  Are you calling every poster out who commented in that thread, or...?   

Yes, that is how i "role."

Calling out spelling on a message board!!! More proof that you are out of options.

I didn't even bother fixing it because I thought, or what it hoped? People were capable of talking sports here not praying for an A in Internet English!!!

I'll give you props though, at least you weren't one of those "When did we get a Devante?" guys.

[BCHoopster]

I do agree Vander was a better overall athlete than Todd..and much longer..which helped him cover more court area defensively.   I don't feel Vander was much quicker, laterally, anyway - probably straight line, yes...

But, Vander did have the benefit of playing with Junior running the point - Junior was great in transition, and pretty good in the halfcourt...and did require to be defended out to the 3 point line...I hate to belabor the point...but I think some just underestimate how hard it is to execute against the defense that can sag 6' off your PG...

I agree, all I can say about Derrick is that he is the worst offensive point guard I have watched this year.  Buzz might love him, but he brings nothing to the table.  Junior was 10 times the player, but he was not that good either.  But next to Blue they had to defend both, does make a difference.  I do not see how they will be able to play next year if he plays 30 minutes at the
point.  Juan can not score, Derrick can not score, so that leaves Burton, Taylor, and Mayo.  Fisher will make a difference but they will need scoring from the point next year.  Burton, Taylor and Juan upfront will be a challenge at the beginning of the year.

[CTWarrior]

...I hate to belabor the point...

No you don't. 

[jesmu84]

Except Mayo has a track record of being able to finish with a hoop 50% of the time, and has shown he can be effective going to the basket...

My point in saying that, is that, if you believe Mayo made the correct choice - attacking basket because the defense was collapsing around Davante - then you must also believe Juan made the correct choice in doing the same. Regardless of his "ability to finish", he made the correct basketball play.

[NersEllenson]

I agree, all I can say about Derrick is that he is the worst offensive point guard I have watched this year.  Buzz might love him, but he brings nothing to the table.  Junior was 10 times the player, but he was not that good either.  But next to Blue they had to defend both, does make a difference.  I do not see how they will be able to play next year if he plays 30 minutes at the
point.  Juan can not score, Derrick can not score, so that leaves Burton, Taylor, and Mayo.  Fisher will make a difference but they will need scoring from the point next year.  Burton, Taylor and Juan upfront will be a challenge at the beginning of the year.

I'd have to think Burton will get a TON of Jamil's minutes next year...give Burton another off-season of strength and conditioning work, his lateral quickness will improve, will have at least 1 year of experience under his belt defensively...and he should improve to be a solid on ball defender...and an absolute stud on offensive end.

Hopefully, Dawson can earn his way up to 20-25 minutes per game running point next year, or Duane Wilson for that matter - and Derrick can reduce down to 15-20 - which I feel he'd be effective and potentially give asset caliber minutes in those amounts.

Concern for me next year in addition to who will step up at PG will be rebounding..which is where McKay could have really helped.  Steve Taylor may be able to do it, and replace what Jamil did along with Luke Fischer...

[NersEllenson]

My point in saying that, is that, if you believe Mayo made the correct choice - attacking basket because the defense was collapsing around Davante - then you must also believe Juan made the correct choice in doing the same. Regardless of his "ability to finish", he made the correct basketball play.

Part of making the correct basketball play is also knowing your limitations.  I don't totally disagree with your point/logic, yet Juan really struggles going to the basket...never seems to get squared up, or elevate strong vertically...always flailing diagonally.  I'd rather he take a couple dribbles into a pull up 8-10 footer than try to get all the way to the basket...

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

I'd have to think Burton will get a TON of Jamil's minutes next year...give Burton another off-season of strength and conditioning work, his lateral quickness will improve, will have at least 1 year of experience under his belt defensively...and he should improve to be a solid on ball defender...and an absolute stud on offensive end.

How much more strength does that kid need? Hes a bull.

[wadesworld]

Stop crying? Don't flatter yourself. No tears have been shed. Sorry that you had nothing, resorted to the generic "are you coaching" comment and got owned. Pathetic.

Yet in your post right here you flat out call a player BAD. I said Buzz was foolish, for that decision the one I mentioned. Of course you go literal and take it as a whole. Either way....being a fool is a little better then being straight up BAD.

The hypocrisy is bordering on crazy.

Again, you did not say "Buzz was foolish, for that decision the one I mentioned."  Whatever that means.  You said, "Buzz being the fool that he is..."  I quoted it two or three different times.  If you want me to quote it a fourth I will.  I don't know how else to say it or what else to do.  It is a direct quote from you.  Exactly, word for word, what you wrote.  I called you out on it, and then you changed it to, "I said Buzz was a fool for keeping Davante out of the game so long in the 2nd half" (paraphrasing, not a direct quote like the first one is).  Those are two very different things to say.  I do not know how else to put it.  If you had originally said the 2nd thing I would have never even responded to it at all, but you didn't until I had responded to it.  That is on you, not on me.

As far as "Bad Mayo," you've been around this board, you know that many posters, including myself, refer to "Good Mayo," who thankfully has shown up far more often this season than I expected, when Todd Mayo is playing good basketball within the flow of the offense, and "Bad Mayo" (or "Frustrating Mayo" as someone else put it) when he is forcing shots and not looking to pass.  Last night we saw "Bad Mayo."

That is about all I will say on this subject, as the first part I have stated over and over and have provided you with your own word for word quote multiple times yet you say I "got owned" (how is that?  Because you changed your argument after you got called out for it?  Hilarious), and the second part you know but you're just trying to show how I "role."

Seriously, move on.  You got heated watching Marquette play poorly and you typed something differently than you meant it.  I read what you typed and took it as if you meant it that way.  All you have to do is say, "I didn't mean to say Buzz is a fool, I meant to say Buzz made a foolish decision," and I will say, "I gotcha, then you are correct."  But instead you continue to deny that you said Buzz was a fool when I continue to put a direct quote in there where you (nobody else) said, "Buzz being the fool that he is..."  There is no other way to interpret that than you think Buzz is a fool and was acting as he is, a fool.  You didn't mean it that way, I now get that, but when you typed it that is what it read.  Don't deny it, because it's written by you.  Just say you mistyped/misspoke/said something you didn't mean.  It happens.  Denying it happened just makes you look childish and foolish, because it did happen and there's no denying it.

[CTWarrior]

Concern for me next year in addition to who will step up at PG will be rebounding..which is where McKay could have really helped.  Steve Taylor may be able to do it, and replace what Jamil did along with Luke Fischer...

I think a healthy Taylor will be a great rebounder.  I know nothing about Fischer, but I hope he can produce for us, because we're going to need another big body.

[keefe]

Hey dude. Gardner hasn't missed tonight. Literally. Why are you charging into a crowded lane with 30 seconds left on the shot clock up 3 with 3 minutes to go when your big man has scored your team's last 9 points? Why? Just why? Absolutely inexcusable.

Inexcusable? What's inexcusable is your petty, ill-informed commentary about Marquette basketball players.

There's a great commercial where Payton Manning shows up at the workplace of the idiots who criticize his play. He jeers and derides their job performance. Puts things in a very different light.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

I think a healthy Taylor will be a great rebounder.  I know nothing about Fischer, but I hope he can produce for us, because we're going to need another big body.

Fischer is a stretch 5. Very Bucky like. We will see how Buzz utilizes him.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Bad mayonnaise would be a cool band name....or maybe the latest strain of maryjane

[wadesworld]

Inexcusable? What's inexcusable is your petty, ill-informed commentary about Marquette basketball players.

There's a great commercial where Payton Manning shows up at the workplace of the idiots who criticize his play. He jeers and derides their job performance. Puts things in a very different light.

I get it.  Taking a shot with 30 seconds on the shot clock is not inexcusable.  Accidentally dropping a bomb from a fighter jet on an innocent civilian town is inexcusable, something I know nothing about.  Thank you for once again reminding me how small my problems are.

Just like this Marquette team struggles to understand time and situation within the game, you struggle to take things in context.  It is a completely inexcusable basketball play to make.  In the grand scheme of life, you are correct, it's just one shot in a little game.

[keefe]

Bad mayonnaise would be a cool band name....or maybe the latest strain of maryjane

A buddy of mine had a great trick for getting out of obligatory social functions. Call in and inform the hostess that you ate some bad shellfish. Nobody will ever question it or wish to explore the details of your suffering. Bad Mayo would work, too, if you used the tainted oysters story too recently.

[PGsHeroes32]

Again, you did not say "Buzz was foolish, for that decision the one I mentioned."  Whatever that means.  You said, "Buzz being the fool that he is..."  I quoted it two or three different times.  If you want me to quote it a fourth I will.  I don't know how else to say it or what else to do.  It is a direct quote from you.  Exactly, word for word, what you wrote.  I called you out on it, and then you changed it to, "I said Buzz was a fool for keeping Davante out of the game so long in the 2nd half" (paraphrasing, not a direct quote like the first one is).  Those are two very different things to say.  I do not know how else to put it.  If you had originally said the 2nd thing I would have never even responded to it at all, but you didn't until I had responded to it.  That is on you, not on me.

As far as "Bad Mayo," you've been around this board, you know that many posters, including myself, refer to "Good Mayo," who thankfully has shown up far more often this season than I expected, when Todd Mayo is playing good basketball within the flow of the offense, and "Bad Mayo" (or "Frustrating Mayo" as someone else put it) when he is forcing shots and not looking to pass.  Last night we saw "Bad Mayo."

That is about all I will say on this subject, as the first part I have stated over and over and have provided you with your own word for word quote multiple times yet you say I "got owned" (how is that?  Because you changed your argument after you got called out for it?  Hilarious), and the second part you know but you're just trying to show how I "role."

Seriously, move on.  You got heated watching Marquette play poorly and you typed something differently than you meant it.  I read what you typed and took it as if you meant it that way.  All you have to do is say, "I didn't mean to say Buzz is a fool, I meant to say Buzz made a foolish decision," and I will say, "I gotcha, then you are correct."  But instead you continue to deny that you said Buzz was a fool when I continue to put a direct quote in there where you (nobody else) said, "Buzz being the fool that he is..."  There is no other way to interpret that than you think Buzz is a fool and was acting as he is, a fool.  You didn't mean it that way, I now get that, but when you typed it that is what it read.  Don't deny it, because it's written by you.  Just say you mistyped/misspoke/said something you didn't mean.  It happens.  Denying it happened just makes you look childish and foolish, because it did happen and there's no denying it.

I know what I typed. I just admitted it in the post you quoted. You took the literal meaning of it, that I think he is all around foolish. I am aware of the way I typed it and how it could easily be interpreted.

But what I just said is, If I did mean he is in general a fool you also just called a player bad. Calling someone a fool is a little less insulting then calling them straight up bad. But either way they are equivalent and I am pretty sure you don't play college basketball, just like I don't coach.

Point was that this is a message board for discussion. It can't all just be positive things would go stale. We all know that truthfully we couldn't do any better but if we see something in hindsight it's fine to not agree with it.

Someone can disagree with my opinion all they want I just want to know why my opinion is disagreed with rather than being pointed to the obvious that I am not a coach.

[keefe]

I get it.  Taking a shot with 30 seconds on the shot clock is not inexcusable.  Accidentally dropping a bomb from a fighter jet on an innocent civilian town is inexcusable, something I know nothing about.  Thank you for once again reminding me how small my problems are.

Just like this Marquette team struggles to understand time and situation within the game, you struggle to take things in context.  It is a completely inexcusable basketball play to make.  In the grand scheme of life, you are correct, it's just one shot in a little game.

You don't get it. It's not about context; it's about decorum and civility. Why you think it's ok to crap on these kids is beyond me. You must be pretty special or you are just a nasty f#ck.